twelph wrote:As a side note, meditation has the benefit of stilling the mind to the point where evaluating one's thinking can be directly linked to different sensations in the body. When critical thinking talks about trying to determine your own bias, using the body as a frame of reference to notice when you feel strongly about something will help you from falling into these traps.

I believe that several teachers have mentioned that in the west there is a stigmatism associated with being aware of your body. Taking this into consideration, it makes sense that critical thinking (with the current iteration being developed mostly from western philosophy) would lack this portion of the Dhamma.

Which teachers?

REBT, CBT, DBT and MBCT do the opposite of stigmatize the body. E.g., REBT and CBT teaches unconditional self acceptance, which includes body acceptance, and DBT (Marsha Linehan's mindfulness infused version of CBT) and MBCT specifically teach mindfulness of the body. And all these therapeutic modalities teach critical thinking, so they definitely do not lack this portion of the Dhamma.

polarbuddha101 wrote:Another good use of critical thinking with the aim of improving one's thinking comes from the Dvedhavitakka Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html). And as pointed out critical thinking should play a significant role in cultivating right effort as well as appropriate attention.

Mr Man wrote:No it isn't. critical thinking is about thought based solutions to thought created problems. Vipassana is transformative. It creates a shift. Critical thinking is of the world.

A sutta response:

"When for you there will be only the seen in the seen, only the heard in theheard, only the sensed in the sensed, only the cognized in the cognized,then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in termsof that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neitherhere nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of suffering."

-- Ud I 10

This is not a matter of conceptual, critical thinking, and it is something that can be cultivated.

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:The factor of enlightenment called "Investigation of Phenomena" (Dhammavicaya), by means of which a meditator gains insight, does not speculate, it just observes things as they truly are, without any prejudice or bias.

I brought dhammavicaya up quite early in this thread.

It's not accurate to say "without any." Observing as a form of knowing comes with it's own assumptions and biases and requires critical judgment (and the way you phrase this looks to me like what Ellis and Burns call the irrational belief/cognitive distortion of All-Or-Nothing Thinking). The Path has a Goal (telos) and is fabricated by the practitioners verbal, mental, and bodily actions. The Goal dictates which biases to have and which to discard. The fabricating of The Path requires critical thinking. Critical thinking, by the definition in the video, is not merely speculative as the goal postulated there is to improve thinking. If you read Thanissaro's Skill In Questions, for instance, you'll find a case for the fact that the Buddha did just this.

Mr Man wrote:No it isn't. critical thinking is about thought based solutions to thought created problems. Vipassana is transformative. It creates a shift. Critical thinking is of the world.

Would be interested to hear from robertk and also from those with a strong "classical" sutta understanding would have to say?

Dear mr manvipassana is as you say not thinking about a subject. see below from sujin boriharnwanaket.

Here is an extract from Dhamma talk:

Acharn:seeing arising and seeing sees but acctually how come to be seeing? Noself, No body. While one is fast asleep no one there at all. No friend, nopossesion, no name, no world.But how come sound appearing? See, it indicates anattaness, when there is righttime for hearing to hear whatever sound is there it has to arise..by conditions.And than goes away instantly. Unknowingly from birth to death. So it's notunderstanding reality at all. There is always thinking, about realities or aboutsubject, different subject like medicine, and architecture and history. But notthe understanding any reality at all. But one has to be born and die. For sure.Because acctually there is no one who is born, and no one who dies. But this isa conditioned reality.

No one can stop it. The arising and falling away of a reality.

What about at this moment of seeing. It is so real, because whatever is seen isseen, now...We dont need to say this is nama, which sees and the ruupa is seen.Not necessery at all. That is not the way. But the way to understand is thatwhen there is seeing right now, there is seeing. What does it sees? What isseen? The thing that is seen is not the seeing. So there is beginning ofunderstanding, the nature of reality.

polarbuddha101 wrote:Another good use of critical thinking with the aim of improving one's thinking comes from the Dvedhavitakka Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html). And as pointed out critical thinking should play a significant role in cultivating right effort as well as appropriate attention.

Which I initially brought up also. Did you skip my posts?

No. I read your posts. I guess I sort of skipped over dhamma vicaya without processing it. Also, you did point out the difference between skillful and unskillful desire but not the sutta on two kinds of thinking so that is why I brought that up. And yes, I was referring to you implicitly when I mentioned appropriate attention and right effort. I was only referring to Ben when I mentioned investigation of dhammas as a factor of awakening. Anyway, good stuff you wrote, it was interesting.

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

robertk wrote:sujin:There is always thinking, about realities or aboutsubject, different subject like medicine, and architecture and history. But notthe understanding [of]any reality at all.

No one can stop it. The arising and falling away of a reality.

What about at this moment of seeing. It is so real, because whatever is seen isseen, now..

So is Sujin saying "reality" is not a "subject"? .

she is using the term realities to mean paramattha dhammas, the khandhas, dhatus, like seeing, hearing, sound, vedana etc.So even we Buddhists, even if we know Abhidhamma, tend to think about these realities rather than knowing them at the moment they arise.(and most of the time we simply think about worldly topics.)

polarbuddha101 wrote:Another good use of critical thinking with the aim of improving one's thinking comes from the Dvedhavitakka Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html). And as pointed out critical thinking should play a significant role in cultivating right effort as well as appropriate attention.

Which I initially brought up also. Did you skip my posts?

No. I read your posts. I guess I sort of skipped over dhamma vicaya without processing it. Also, you did point out the difference between skillful and unskillful desire but not the sutta on two kinds of thinking so that is why I brought that up. And yes, I was referring to you implicitly when I mentioned appropriate attention and right effort. I was only referring to Ben when I mentioned investigation of dhammas as a factor of awakening. Anyway, good stuff you wrote, it was interesting.

robertk wrote:sujin:There is always thinking, about realities or aboutsubject, different subject like medicine, and architecture and history. But notthe understanding [of]any reality at all.

No one can stop it. The arising and falling away of a reality.

What about at this moment of seeing. It is so real, because whatever is seen isseen, now..

So is Sujin saying "reality" is not a "subject"? .

she is using the term realities to mean paramattha dhammas, the khandhas, dhatus, like seeing, hearing, sound, vedana etc.So even we Buddhists, even if we know Abhidhamma, tend to think about these realities rather than knowing them at the moment they arise.(and most of the time we simply think about worldly topics.)

Speaking of the Abhidhamma, it, at times, strikes me as a highly sophisticated manifestion of a great early Buddhist critical thinking project. I don't see how they could've created such an elaborate scholasticism without the application of crtical thinking, but that may partially be ignorance on my part, as I have not yet completed a full course of study in the Abhidhamma. So, I'll defer to your corrections on this matter if you have any.